What Four Essays Published by The Nation Magazine Can Teach Those Seeking Change in America(Part Two)

Martin Luther King Jr. was a revolutionary spirit whose work
as a civil rights leader came to be revered by people all over the world.
President Ronald Reagan begrudgingly chose to give in calls to honor King each
year. But, what we celebrate, many liberals or progressives understand, is a
sanitized version of King. Americans celebrate his "dream" but rarely discuss
his opposition to militarism. They rarely discuss his resentment toward the
liberal establishment as they accepted "token" victories instead of pushing
fully for radical change that could address poverty and racism.

Published in March of 1965, "Let Justice Roll Down"
illuminated the power of demonstrations and offered analysis on what it meant
to be a "consensus president." King believed that the civil rights movement
should and would not end with civil rights legislation. King thoughtfully and
critically examined the "high respect" President Johnson was earning as he
sought to advance civil rights. At this point, the Civil Rights Act had been
passed but President Johnson had yet to pass the Voting Rights Act.

"The New York Times in a perceptive editorial on December 20
asked if Mr. Johnson really means to be a "consensus President." It
pointed out that such were Coolidge and Eisenhower, who "served the needs
of the day but not of decades to come. They preside over periods of rest and
consolidation. They lead no probes into the future and break no fresh
ground." The Times then added, "A President who wants to get things
done has to be a fighter, has to spend the valuable coin of his own popularity,
has to jar the existing consensus....No major program gets going unless someone
is willing to wage an active and often fierce struggle in its behalf."

The Times is undeniably correct. The fluidity and
instability of American public opinion on questions of social change is very
marked. There would have been no civil rights progress, nor a nuclear test-ban
treaty, without resolute Presidential leadership. The issues which must be decided
are momentous. The contest is not tranquil and relaxed. The search for a
consensus will tend to become a quest for the least common denominator of
change. In an atmosphere devoid of urgency the American people can easily be
stupefied into accepting slow reform, which in practice would be inadequate
reform. "Let Justice roll down like waters in a mighty stream," said
the Prophet Amos. He was seeking not consensus but the cleansing action of
revolutionary change. America has made progress toward freedom, but measured
against the goal the road ahead is still long and hard. This could be the worst
possible moment for slowing down.

King grasped what could happen to efforts for change if
efforts were slow. Presumably, he understood that the American public could
lose interest and as the struggle waged on question why change was taking so
long. He knew that people even liberals would accommodate power unless a
vibrant movement was keeping the fire of revolutionary change alive. He
recognized the importance of presidential leadership, especially because such
leadership could make it evident that the need for change was urgent. But, he
cautiously warned against leaders who constantly sought to be consensus
leaders:

A consensus orientation is understandably attractive to a
political leader. His task is measurably easier if he is merely to give shape
to widely accepted programs. He becomes a technician rather than an innovator.
Past Presidents have often sought such a function. President Kennedy promised
in his campaign an executive order banning discrimination in housing. This
substantial progressive step, he declared, required only "a stroke of the
pen." Nevertheless, he delayed execution of the order long after his
election on the ground that he awaited a "national consensus."
President Roosevelt, facing the holocaust of an economic crisis in the early
thirties, attempted to base himself on a consensus with the N.R.A.; and
generations earlier, Abraham Lincoln temporized and hesitated through years of
civil war, seeking a consensus before issuing the Emancipation Proclamation.

In the end, however, none of these Presidents fashioned the
program which was to mark him as historically great by patiently awaiting a
consensus. Instead, each was propelled into action by a mass movement which did
not necessarily reflect an overwhelming majority. What the movement lacked in
support was less significant than the fact that it had championed the key issue
of the hour. President Kennedy was forced by Birmingham and the tumultuous
actions it stimulated to offer to Congress the Civil Rights Bill. Roosevelt was
impelled by labor, farmers and small-businessmen to commit the government in
revolutionary depth to social welfare as a constituent stimulus to the economy.
Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation under the pressure of war needs. The overwhelming national consensus followed
their acts; it did not precede them.

King, if he were still alive today, would regard President
Barack Obama as a technician. What former policy director for Obama's senate
campaign Raja Krishnamoorthi told the Financial
Times in 2008, "He has the rare ability to cut to the heart of issues very
quickly and make decisions that synthesize the various views on the table. It
is really something to behold. It is not an instinct everybody has," would not
be reason for celebration. And, the prime reason would be that consensus to the
civil rights movement would have meant finding agreement with the Ku Klux Klan
or proponents of the white power structure that was oppressing black
communities.

Liberals on the ground should consider King's words on
consensus. They should wonder if they could have won better health reform if
they had known the wisdom of King. They should ask if they were wrong to back
off when the power of the Tea Party's wholesale sabotage and obstruction of
health reform and Blue Dogs like Sen. Max Baucus became a force that stunted
the possibility of advancing Medicare for All and even a public option. Their
willingness to let Obama and Democrats in Congress determine what the scope of
reform would be ensured the insurance companies got the kind of legislation
they could emasculate and manipulate now as they work with leaders in
Washington to write regulations.

There is no movement for health care for all making noise
right now. That noise could further advance an agenda to address poverty and
economic inequality in this country. That noise could empower and help protect
labor, which is now facing persecution from Democratic and Republican governors
that believe they must fight public workers in order to balance state budgets.
But, sadly, there are few individuals in the streets fighting to end injustice.

"Let Justice Roll Down" was also instructive on the power of
a grassroots movement. Nowadays, many are skeptical of the utility of activism
or resistance. People question why people even try to take on the elites or
oligarchy through protest because they do not see it making a difference. King
confronted that skepticism:

Kevin Gosztola is a writer and curator of Firedoglake's blog The Dissenter, a blog covering civil liberties in the age of technology. He is an editor for OpEdNews.com and a former intern and videographer for The Nation Magazine.And, he's the (more...)